Striking a Balance between Program-Specific and Portfolio-Level Evaluation: Lessons Learned from a Multi-Site Evaluation on the Texas-Mexico Border

Abstract Funders are increasingly making strategic investments across multiple grantees, aiming for their portfolio to improve targeted outcomes in a specific issue area. To this end, funders might use multi-site evaluation (MSE) approaches to examine the impact of their collective investments. However, it is important to recognize that each program—and its own program evaluation—must be tailored to its setting, population, and local context to best meet the needs of its target population. Therefore, multi-site evaluations need to account for this complexity. This paper describes the Si Texas project, a large initiative of eight grantees implementing different integrated behavioral health models to improve physical and mental health outcomes along the Texas-Mexico border. With over 4,200 MSE study participants, the evaluation for Si Texas used a partnership-centered approach to both enhance the evidence base and build local organizational capacity. This paper describes this approach, the process of tailoring evaluation practices to the grantees’ context, and the challenge of balancing consistency at the grantee-level for the portfolio multi-site evaluation. Successes, challenges, and lessons learned related to study design, data collection, grantee partnership, and capacity building are discussed.